The allure of fossil fuels, despite their detrimental impact on our planet, is a fascinating and complex issue. It's time to unravel this paradox and explore why, in a world striving for net zero emissions, some still find an odd sense of masculinity in these outdated energy sources.
The opponents of renewable energy and net zero often resort to arguing that it's not a 'manly' enough solution. They insist that coal and gas are cheaper, despite evidence to the contrary. But here's the crux: the appeal of fossil fuels has always been intertwined with notions of masculinity.
Senator Matt Canavan, the policy leader of the Coalition, puts it bluntly: "The government's only way to achieve net zero is by dictating your car choice, your driving speed, and even your diet..." This statement echoes a traditional, macho ideal where real men eat meat, drive fast, and, as Trump famously urged, "drill baby drill."
While Canavan is correct that governments must control emissions to meet net zero targets, he overlooks the fact that governments don't have absolute control over these emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions, much like GDP, are the result of countless individual decisions daily. Promising net zero emissions in 25 years is akin to predicting a specific GDP value, which, while possible, is not something that can be legislated with precision.
In a market economy like Australia's, managing variables like GDP and carbon emissions requires price mechanisms (like interest rates or a carbon price) or significant taxpayer funding, and even then, the results are not guaranteed. The Labor government's net zero target by 2050, without a carbon price or dedicated funding, is essentially a guess.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, in an attempt to retain the support of conservative voters, now suggests she would repeal this target, reminiscent of Tony Abbott's promise to repeal a carbon price mechanism, which he later fulfilled.
Ley's stance is intriguing: she welcomes net zero, but only if it's easy and doesn't require any real action. She proposes achieving it through technology, choice, and voluntary markets, which is essentially what Labor is proposing, yet she still opposes the "net zero" label.
The annual United Nations climate meetings, which began in 1995, have failed to make significant progress. These "conferences of parties" have become more like the Olympics, with countries vying to host these events, which result in massive carbon emissions from jet fuel used by thousands of delegates traveling to these locations.
Since the first conference, global greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 64%, reaching 38.6 billion tonnes annually. Australia's emissions for the year ending March 2025 are estimated at 440.2 million tonnes, a decrease of 1.4% thanks to the widespread adoption of rooftop solar.
The 2015 Paris Agreement, signed by 195 parties (now 194 after America's withdrawal), aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to keep it to 1.5°C. To achieve this, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 and decline by 43% by 2030. However, emissions have not yet peaked.
The UN's latest synthesis of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) finds that if all were adopted, emissions would be 11 to 24% below the 2019 level by 2035. The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) states that to stay on track for 1.5 degrees of warming, emissions need to be 57% below the 2019 level in 2035, and 35% below for 2 degrees of warming.
Australia's approach to net zero by 2050 assumes the creation of new forests equivalent to two Tasmanias, but these forests cannot be in the desert; they must be on fertile land currently used for pasture and crops. Offsets, or the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, are a key part of this strategy, but they are also a potential pitfall.
The use of the word "net" before "zero" acknowledges that some emissions cannot be removed in time and must be offset. A system of certificates issued to those who remove carbon dioxide has developed, which can be sold to emitters to offset their emissions. However, this is an unregulated market, and politicians, motivated to keep prices low, oversee the national markets, which can lead to subpar products, much like in the housing market.
Andrew Macintosh, an ANU academic who studies these offsets, states that "less than 2% of global offsets involve tree planting; for Australia, it's 2.2%. The rest is mostly bullshit." He explains that this "bullshit" includes avoided deforestation, planting trees in the desert that don't thrive, and collecting landfill methane.
Professor Macintosh and seven other academics recently published an article in Nature magazine, arguing that companies are using carbon credits as an easy alternative to actual decarbonization efforts. They conclude that credits should be reserved for genuinely hard-to-abate sources and allowed only when carbon prices align with Paris goals, caps are near zero, and integrity risks are tightly managed.
So, while Sussan Ley may feel she's paddling up a climate denial creek without a paddle, with Matt Canavan as her coxswain, the reality is that everyone else is saying "net zero" without meaning it. It's time to take meaningful action and actually do something about it!
